1997 (10) TMI 369

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orded on April 25, 1989 in Civil Revision No. 87 of 1987 by another single judge (K.K. Gupta, J.) of that Court. Shorn of details, brief facts necessary for disposal for this appeal are that on November 28, 1977 a suit, filed by the appellants, was decreed and an injunction was issued to the defendant-respondents to close down the passage carved out by opening a door from the wall and further the defendants were restrained from using that passage. On August 7, 1986 an application for execution of the decree was filed in the Executing Court on the ground that the injunction were being violated. The judgement debtor filed objections to the Execution Application and raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the Execution Application....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e committed by Gupta, J. by correct interpretation of the decree and the Act to the facts of the case and that exercise could not rightly with. He asserted that sharma, J. had rightly set aside the order of Gupta, J. dated 25.4.1989 and upheld the order of the Executing Court dated 6.5.1987. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions raised at the Bar. A perusal of the application filed by the judgment debtors seeking review of the order dated 25.4.1989 shows that none of the grounds stated therein can strictly speaking be said to fall within the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The review petition in effect challenged the correctness of the order of Gupta, J. on the question of limitation without ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....70) while quoting with approval a passage from Abhiram Taleshwar Sharma Vs. Abhiram Pishak Sharma & Ors. (1979 (4) SCC 389), this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ourse to review petition in the facts and circumstances of the case was not permissible. The aggrieved judgment debtors could have approached the higher forum through appropriate proceedings, to assail the order of Gupta, J. and get it set aside but it was not open to them to seek a "review of the order of petition. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of Sharma, J. cannot be sustained and accordingly accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 6.3.1997. As a consequence of the setting aside of the impugned order, the remand order made by Gupta, J. would automatically stand revived but that in our opinion also does not solve the problem. We find that neither the executing court nor Gu....